On 7 February 2013 17:06, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I was on the other side of this, albeit a while back.
We had to decide
between MediaWiki and Confluence to power Disney's ParentPedia (which has
since been abandoned):
The main reasons we chose Confluence:
* An easier to understand API. This seems to not be a problem any more:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Client_code
* Easier setup on Windows:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Running_MediaWiki_on_Windows, possibly
made easier now by Bitnami:
http://bitnami.org/stack/mediawiki
yeah, I was speaking from my experience of MW vs Confluence, where the
deciders were (1) no WYSIWYG and slightly (2) none of the fancy ACL
stuff Confluence has. The ACLs were more a theoretical selling point
to the business decision maker, but WYSIWYG swung it I think. And the
users *hated* Confluence, but at least they didn't have to deal with
Wikitext.
(In my current job I'm happily spreading MediaWikis far and wide,
albeit with very little customisation. But I'm really keen to use the
Visual Editor as soon as it's in a tarball version.)
- d.